tv Today in Washington CSPAN January 5, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EST
representatives or their staff or even with the media. so, for example, on global warming you might have a few factoids like the house bill will cost the@@@@@@g#sh@ @ @ @ãú 300 factoids a day. if they're in a paid ad that they're reading, you know, they're flipping through roll call to see which congressman
just did something embarrassing, just did something embarrassing, then they see, oh, about global warming. 1.7 million new jobs, reduces the federal budget deficit. and that will have some impact on their thinking. so you can run these ads in ways, and run ads that you'd never do with civilians but do have a lot of impact with members and their staff ask the media -- and the media. in fact, we had run ads with quotes from firefighters talking about how we didn't need to chop down trees to save them which was the other side's proposal. let's cut down all these trees before they catch on fire. to prevent forest fires. and before they die. so we put in a bunch of quotes from firefighter, and one staff person said, you know, that ad you ran was really effective in getting your message out. well, we had already sent them the same information, like, three other times. but because it was in a paid ad,
it had impact with them. so that's the second use. third use is outside washington, d.c. you can use paid media to, again, raise the visibility of the issue. one of the things that we did once is when i was with working on another clean air campaign, we ran ads on the need for more fuel-efficient cars in a place, and the representative who we were aiming at, his wife heard them on the radio back home. and she made it clear to her husband that he needed to be good on this issue. and so we were able to raise the visibility of the issue by running them at home. in addition, you can use them to persuade, to seek the support of an elected official before a decision is made. now, that example we said, you know, be sure to call congressman x and get him to
vote for cleaner car cans. cars. and, in fact, we ran the ad so much that his wife went to one of our champions on the committee, another congressman, and said, please, take off the ads. we'll vote with you, okay? and so the ad was very successful in persuading the congressman to support our position. so you can use them to persuade. you have to do that, of course, before the decision is made. if you run persuasion ads after the decision's made, that's a little late. now, if the member decides to vote in your favor, you can then thank him or her in a follow-up ad. so that's another way to use paid advertising is to thank. so you've got a few reasons. you've got salience, giving facts, persuasion, thanking. but if you're going to do that, you need to make sure that the person you're trying to thank actually wants to be publicly thanked.
once we were working on an issue where the member of congress was supportive of international family planning, but his district was about 70% catholic, and he didn't want his constituents to know that he had been voting right on this issue. unfortunately, the person working on this didn't think to ask him in advance, and we found out the hard way. so what you need to do is if you're going to thank somebody for doing, for voting the way you ask them to, check with them first to make sure that they actually want to be publicly thanked. .. that is ai] hypothetical. many members of congress have taken far more than a million
dollars, but you0d can use theo kohold them accountable, and tht is an importantç piece. çhere is the other thing. here's the other thing, when you are running persuasion ads and you mention their name, call representative utley and tell her that you want when you tell her you want to make america america more energy independent, she knows that if you paid money to try to persuade her, what does she think is going to happen if she votes against you? do you think she's going to know that you very possibly could run ads against her afterwards? yes, is the answer that you're looking for. i think we need those jumper cables. all right. so it's a very important too many running the persuasion ads, but to make it really effective, you have to name the name of the
representative or senator, who is your target and once they know you're running a persuasion ad, they will be fairly sure that you're going to run a negative ad against them if they vote wrong. and so that's a very important thing. so we can use persuasion ads for informing, persuading, thanking, holding accountable, we call those either thank you ads or since this is on c-span, i'll say spank you ads, holding them accountable and there's one other thing you can do with issue advertising. which is you can run ads that are designed to create a larger impression about the senator or representative's record that is more time for other purposes than persuading them on a vote, which is you can run them, you know, around election time, or, you know, in the months leading up to an election, highlighting the fact that senator davidson
has been a strong supporter of clean energy reform and creating clean energy jobs here in virginia, and so that could be very effective in helping to create a favorable impression about senator davidson. similarly, you could run ads that say, representative woods has voted against clean energy reform and clean energy jobs, because he wants the support of big oil, please call him and tell him to start supporting clean energy reform. we're going to talk a little more about issue ads in a few minutes, but that's another way, another purpose of issue ads, which is create an overall impression favorablely or negatively, about the senator or reb at this. -- or representative. now what are the key elements of an ad campaign? the most important factor is what? does anyone have a guess? yes?
>> that's an important piece, not the most important piece. any other guesses? yes. [inaudible] >> that is an important piece we'll talk about in a minute. not the most important piece. >> channels through which you communicate. >> invaluable but not determinative. >> management? >> no, sorry. >> well -- >> bingo. money. that is the most important thing that determines the shape of your media campaign. the more money you have, the more options you have. the more money you have, the mortar gets you have, that you can -- the number of places you can run advertising. so budget is the first most important question. now, your budget for your campaign is what, a million dollars? is that for everything or just for paid media? >> everything. >> everything. that's relatively small, so let's say you spend, and i'm
making this up now, say you spend about half of that on paid advertising. that's half a million dollars. depending on -- yes. >> already? time flies when you're having fun. i'm going to go longer and then maybe 10 minutes, let me know when it's 9:15 a.m. and then we'll take questions. say you spend a o half a million dollars, depending on how many targets you have, that may not go very far. once you know your budget, you know your target. so for $5 million, i'm just making that number up, i'm not saying that's how much you should spend, but say you're spending half a million, i'm saying that that's enough money for anywhere from three to seven or eight targets, depending on the size of the state. you're focusing on the senate, so you have to run media statewide, or at least in key markets, so that's going to make it more expensive. so that's anywhere from three to
eight. now if your targets are in smaller states, like the dakotas, then you can, you know, do more. if your states are larger states, like say, florida, then you can do less, because it's more expensive there. in addition, you might want to look at your targeting and see where there are states where we have two senators we're trying to persuade and not just one, and so again, that could help you figure out how many targets you can hit. those are the really two key factors in determining the rest of your media strategy, which is budget and targets. number of targets. now, there's a big caveat. thanks to people of your generation, there's been an increased stratification in the viewership of broadcast tv and even cable tv. now, there's so many viewing options. there's on demand, there's netflix, people are watching
shows on hulu, listening to their listening to their i-pods, doing scenarios for climate change strategy. all of those people are taking up pool's time and taking eyeballs away from people's screens or paid advertising on the screen. so we have a situation where it takes more and more money to chase fewer and fewer viewers, so that's also a consideration. as you plan your campaign. it used to be that to make an impression on the public, you'd need to do like 700 gross rating points in a week. does anyone know what gross rating point is? about 100 gross -- go ahead. >> i think it's like 800 to 1,000 per week is proper saturation for a market, and they're based off of how many people are likely to view your tv ad. >> that's right. and each 100 points equals about
one average view, so it used to be when i was doing this 10 years ago, it was 700 points a week of broadcast tv, would be enough to get your message across. now it's at least a thousand, if not more. which means, the more points you have to buy, which means the more ads you have to buy, which means what? more it's going to cost you. so -- so you've got your budget, 500,000, say, you've got your target, anywhere from three to seven. then you have to ask, who's your target audience, which someone mentioned, which is an important piece. is it swing voters? is it women? is it elites? is it your base? in an issue campaign, you almost always, unless you're quite wealthy and have a large amount of money, like the big oil companies, which have spent $100 million in 2009 on advertising against global warming legislation, unless you're like them, you've got to really sort of target very
carefully. so with a of a a million dollars, you're not going to persuade many people with that, so what you need to focus on is either elites, which means both paid media -- i'm sorry. the journalists, those are people who used to write for the thing we used to have called newspapers, now they usually write for websites, so journa journalists are elites, you know, corporate leaders, community leaders, high information voters, people like us, who actually care about this sort of stuff. those are sort of the elites. you can aim for them, which means you'd buy on cnn or maybe local news shows, or fox or msnbc, or for base voters. the people who already agree with you, who you're trying to activate. so if you're trying to activate conservatives, you'd advertise on fox. if you're trying to activate progressives, you might advertise on msnbc, and those
are sort of your base. or if you're trying to get women voters, you might do lifetime or advertise during oprah or other things that are more prone to women voters. if you're trying to get old white guys, you would advertise on the bass fishing channel. you know, or swing voters, you might want to target local news, or there's other -- your media buyer will help you figure out how to reach the audience you're going to reach. ok. so once you know your audience, you can pick your medium. if you're going after elites, you can -- usually cnn is a good bet for high t(ççq if you have got a senate in the state, they mayç have cn running all the time, all or you could do a round of local news shows. çtv is very expensive. you need a big budget. çcable tv is very cost effectie and very good at -- niche audiencest( -- at reaching a nie
audiences, so that is often a good way to go. talk radio is a good way if for example, you are inç d.c., all news and weather. i think theyt( have theç weathr every eight seconds, so you qre right there, and you catch that audience, but also,ç talk radio is an excellent tour of -- tool 3qkfor reaching your base. if you run yourç ad on rush limbaugh or clan decks orw3 the sean hannity loves: beth -- you cannot buy ads on public çradio, although you cançmun dt advertising. all things considered, this half hour sponsored by the coalition to stop global warming, but you cannot have any more deeper message buybacks.
-- message then that. you know, progressive base with radio. print advertising, newspaper advertising, in my view is almost never a good use of our dollars, which is one of the reasons why newspapers are in decline, unless and here's one thing that it is good for, you want to show the breadth of a coalition. in a radio or tv ad, you can have this had was brought to you by the coalition to clean up, you know, the environment, or clean energy works, is another coalition you could use. but you can't run a long list of people. on a print ad, you can. so if you wanted to show broad depth of support for your position, you can take out a print ad and then have 100 groups sign on to it and their names are in tiny print and everyone from that group will look for their name and it's a good way of showing breadth of your coalition. so in my view, that's the best time to use print advertising.
otherwise, it's not as effective. so the next question you have to ask, is where. since you're focusing on senate, what is the key market. say you're targeting a senator from missouri. is the key market st. louis? is it kansas city? is it springfield? is it jefferson city. no, of course not. no one lives there. but, you know, you have to pick your market and see where you're trying to reach people. if in fact, you were trying to reach elites, you might want to advertise in jefferson city, because it's the capital of missouri, an that's where there's a base of reporters that cover government and politics there, as well as the governor and a lot of state workers, so you might want to do jefferson city. if you're trying to target the base of say, senator mccaskill, then you might want to go to st. louis or kansas city. if you're trying to target the base of a republican senator, you might go to springfield, which is a very important republican city in the district. so you want to pick the place
where the individuals would have the most impact on them and where you're audience is. then when is the most effective time to run the ads? one of the challenges in trying to run the ads, to either persuade, inform, or do anything before the vote, is figuring out when the vote is going to be. because the senate has no rules, and the number one rule of the senate is everything will happen later than they say it will, and so figuring out the timing is really important. you don't want to go too early, because then it will get lost in further traffic, and if you run it two months before, no one is going to remember. you don't want to run it right before the vote, because the person may have made up their mind by then. you want to run your ads like one or two weeks out. if you can figure out when that is. now, if you're on the side that is trying to pass the global warming bill, your allies are going it set the timing, so you can talk to them and say, when do we need to start running our
paid advertising, when do you think the vote is going to be and they might say the vote will be on april 22, that is the 40th anniversary of earth day. so then you might target your ads for the two weeks before. it can also help if you can target the ads for when the members are at home. so they're more likely to hear or see them. a good example, going back to what we talked about with the clean cars, going back to the clean cars, is that while the member was here, his wife was at home and was able to hear the ads on the radio, so that's a very important piece. then lastly, somebody mentioned the message. that's a really important piece too. it's got to be consistent with your hobbing message, with your other communications, it's got to be consistent with everything else you're saying, and -- so if you're talking to senator woods about job creation, when you go into meet with him and his
staff, you need to talk about job creation in your ads. ok. so you've got to make sure the ads reinforce your other messages. we're going to talk briefly about how you increase the reach of your ad, then we'll take questions. when you're ready to release your ads, it helps to expand their reach's effectiveness, to generate earned media coverage. does anyone know what earned media coverage is? yes? >> it's one that a media outlet covers a story about you, but you didn't pay them to do it. >> exactly. used to be called free media, but everyone knows it takes a lot of work to spend money on to get that free media, so most people call it earned media. that was a very effective technique in the olden days and by olden days, i mean the 1990's, but it's lost some of its ability to generate news, because so many people have used it. hit me give you an example.
in the year 2000, actually, it was 1999, we ran ads about george w. bush's clean record, terrible record on clean air in texas, and we ran them before the new hampshire primary. we spent only $30,000 on the ad, which is a small amount of money and we probably got about $200,000 worth of free media on it. that's harder to happen these days, but it's still possible if if you do it at the right time. you can also put the ad on your web site or put it on youtube and have a link to it. be sure to e-mail copies of the ad to your supporters, if that state, to make sure they know about the ad and that they forward it and if it's a funny ad or a really good ad, it might go viral. that's a long shot, but you have to make sure your supporters see it. you can also use your ad as part of a fund mailing raising to your supporters. here's an ad, we want to put on the air, if you contribute x amount of dollars, we can raise $100,000 and get this ad up to
persuade senator utley to support the clean energy act. so it's important to do that, in order to maximum highs leverage of your ads. -- maximum highs leverage of your ads. so you have two strategies, inside game, outside game, if you're paid media, you're using the outside game. you use outside media to summer wade the member, thank the member or spank the member. the key elements of the ad is money, money, an money. then you figure out your targets and those two things will affect whether you run broadcast tv, cable tv, radio, or print, and make sure that you maximize the reach of your ads. yes. i'll take questions now. >> sorry to interrupt. let's start with money. they don't have a lot of money, but they do have the possibility of getting a coalition together that all contributes to an ad campaign. is that a common thing? >> very common, particularly in the global warming debate on the
anti-side, the oil companies all have a big trade association, called the american petroleum institute and it's the api that's been with running a lot of the ads. i don't know if they ran the post today. i know they ran the post within the last couple of weeks, that they've been running their messages and that's an example of a coalition pooling resources. if you're on the clean energy side, you might want to make coalition efforts with clean energy companies, like wind companies or solar companies or construction companies that do energy efficiency and have them contribute to your campaign, because they will benefit economically if you succeed. other questions. yes, sir. >> i have a question about the cap and trade. is there any discussion about what they're going to use the money from the permits for? >> yes. there's a lot of discussion with that and for those of you not
familiar in the clean energy and global warming bills pending before the senate, they basically establish a dumping feed for pollution. instead of dumping the pollution on the land, you have to pay a dumping fee for dumping it in the hair. that will raise money and that money will be used for several things, number one is to defray the cost in electricity on rate payers, some will be invested in clean energy, like investing in wind or solar power, some will go to trade sensitive -- i'm sorry, energy intensive trade agencies, to other companies that don't -- those are the kinds of things where the money is being talked about. yes, sir? >> long question, it's actually inside baseball. in your capacity at company as director of farmland strategy, who would you say, maybe like three ar four names, because you've been using all the these
fake senators' names, that would be the top senators to target, the ones you see as most likely to go either way on the issue, where it's really up in the air right now, just a few names? >> well, if you're asking me to give you my target list on c-span, i don't think i'm going to do that. however, you can figure out the names yourself, and those are predominantly midwestern senators from manufacturing states, and some farm state democrats, and some moderate conservative republicans. it's important to note in the global warming debate, you've got a large number of members in the senate, anywhere between 20 to 30, who don't even believe global warming exists, so you can write those people of off right away. then you've got some other senators on the republican side, who are not going to vote for everything a president obama wants, no matter what it is. so you can write those people off.
then you have some progressives, who support action, so you want to be in touch with those people but don't want to spend your resources on them. then you have the people in the middle of the ones i described. the one big development is conservative senator lindsay graham has joined forces with progressive senator john kerry and moderate senator joe lieberman in order to put together a compromise package that can get the support of moderates and conservatives. that effort is in its infancy and if that gathers steam, which we hope it will, then that will hopefully attract some of the swing senators. yes? >> [inaudible] -- making sure you're not going to target them. have you ever communicated with a senator before, doing any ads at all, saying we're going to run persuasion ads, if you tell us right now you're on board, we're not going to raise this issue in your district?
is there any of that beforehand, or do you just generally go and wait and see? >> well, first of all, it's important not to promise any member of congress a quid pro quo. if if you do x, then we will do y, because that would certainly be wrong and in many cases, might even be illegal. now i'm not a lawyer, although i live with one, my spouse, which means she win wins every argume. so you don't want to do that. if you're running a persuasion ad, you want to give a heads up to the office in advance and give them a script, but you don't want to do it too much in advance. you don't want to do it a week in advance. you might have want to do it the day before. they will know -- i mean, in a high visibility issue like this, the members know they're going to be targets of persuasion efforts from both sides, so it's not going to be a surprise to them if they're running an ad that you might be running ads.
then if you're going to run a thank you ad, you want to check in advance to make sure it's ok with them, because you might say, you know, let this be between just us, and then, the third case, if you're running a spank you ad, there's no need to inform them in advance, because these are not your friends, these are your opponents. yes. >> talking about broadcast ads, i know a large majority of the budget for those is when and how much. so what time slots would you suggest for us and how many times a day would you suggest? >> well, remember that max said you need to run, you know, up to a thousand gross rating points a week and you know, your ad buyer will tell you what shows, what slots will add up to that. given your limited budgets, you want to focus on a buy that attracts your audience. if your audience is elites, you run it around news. a good time to run ads in washington, that are visibility ads, are around the sunday talk
shows. you know, "meet the press," this week, face the nation, that's a good time to reach elites. without spending a lot of money. and so you might focus on that. if your target is your base, then you're going to want to run the ads enough to get your base involved, so if your base is progressive, you might want to run around news shows, like i said, the best thing to do, the progressive medium of choice is national public radio, but you can't really run ads there, and running the sort of generic ads i ran i don't think is very effective frankly, unless you're trying to drive traffic to your web site an even then, it may only be of modest success, so you want to figure out based on the numbers, what shows those people watch. it might be the sunday talk shows, it might be local news, and local news is usually often a good time to get them. it might be on shows like you know, i don't kno
if you are buying in north dakota, it is going to be a lot cheaper. >> can i ask a follow-up question? >> sure. >> you mention it is important to have a clear message where people agree on it. is that a problem in this campaign to get so many different groups to agree on what the message is, and is it the situation where theyt( there has been timesw3ç where e environmental movement resembles what will rogers saysç -- along for no political party. çi am a democrat. there have been times when various groups did not use the language or focused on the part of debate that opinion researchers pointed to, but now the environmental communityçófás anç umbrella campaign where
everybody is singing not only from the same songbookççó[[ç e :sbç;çxd line and the same nod okthat is essential. çqçfáñrçifw3 you go on the i, they are allt(ç over the map. çm/çç?ntjççdbig oil isrón gasolinew3ñrçi]i] prices,xdç m isç going to focus onqp(çço those messages are different. we(wv their bottom line in the advertising campaignw3 is the bottom line in their business, so that makes it harder for them sometimes. wone of the iron rulesç of congressman, it is always easier to stop things thenç to get thingsç done, so coordination s not always important if you are just trying to stop things because you're throwing everything you can against the wall to see if it sticks. okthey're throwing spaghetti at the wall asñrfá opposed to other things. xdç>> you are talking about an environmental group with a
million-dollar budget. you are talking about advertising. that's like the rule of thumb of a campaign organization. r budget and your advertising budget is about half. in our academic exercise that we're doing, we're given a total budgets of a million dollars that includes our grassroots effort, includes the lobbyist's fees, includes the coalition building, contribution, public opinion poll, if we're going to go that way. how much and when would you suggest, as far as these kind of items? >> well, grassroots organizing is very cost effective, because putting a person on the ground costs anywhere from, you know, depending on how cheap you are, from $3,000 to $5,000 a month. maybe a little bit more. that's much cheaper than running an ad that might cost you $10,000 every time you run it on "american idol." of course you only run ads on "american idol" if your target
audience are tweens. so you know, you have to think about who your target is. if your target is from a sparsely populated state, you can have a relatively smaller media budget. if your target is from a relatively large state, with a lot of media markets, like for example, florida has seven major media markets, you're going to pick one or two markets to focus on in terms of paid ads. it's my view that you want to concentrate your money, spend more money on fewer targets and then spend more money on fewer media markets or each target than running five ads here and five ads this in a different market, it adds up to nothing. so you want to target very carefully. you know, in a state like florida, that's your target state, you might want to forget tv altogether and just do radio, because radio is much cheaper. you know, it's interesting, in house campaigns, where tv can be very effective, is you can buy cable by congressional district,
so even if you're trying to affect somebody in los angeles, you may only have to buy their c.d., which is very affordable, whereas if you're trying to affect a senator from california, there's no way paid media will make any difference really. >> media can be combined with paid media? >> you want to make sure the message in your earned media reflects your message in your paid media. so if your paid media message is around the jobs that will be created with clean energy reform and global warming bill, you want to talk about jobs in earned media. you want to have studies that will show how many jobs will be created. the more state specific they are, the more effective they'll be. you want to do media events at say a new wind farm or a new factory that is opened up. a good example, look at president obama, when he delivered his earth day request, he went to a factory in iowa that used to produce washing machines that was chosed and now
reopened and now produces i believe steel for wind turbines, so that sort of reinforced his message of earned media. obviously if you're the president, you get covered no matter what you to, but if you're running a campaign, wasn't to think of events like that. so if you're talking about a job, you want to reflect all of your earned media jobs. if you're on the other side and want to convince people it's going to cost too much, you want to focus all your earned media on costs with studies and other events, just like your ads talk about costs. so that's how you reflect it. rachel? >> -- how important do you think it is to focus on the environmental effects that are going on? because i know you said there are certain members who are never going to believe in global warming, so how poontang it is to focus on the environment versus jobs and costs? >> first of all, the senators in the senate who don't believe global warming is real, you can't talk to him about jobs.
it's not worth going to talk to him if you're trying to pass a bill. i think in terms of messaging, that depends on your polling. say you're focused on say, florida, then you want to poll there to find out what the most salient issue is. in florida, it might be, you know, we're going to be under water, or we're going to suffer huge devastating hurricanes, or the everglades may dry up or our beaches will be destroyed, whatever they find there. that's maybe what you want to talk about there. if you're doing a farm state, it may be the number one thing to talk about is here's hall the opportunities that farmers are going to have to increase their income. they're going to be able to rent their land for wind turbines, they're going to be able to sell offsets, so people, you know, pay you not to pollute, you know, you're going to make biofuels out of somebody's crop, so that may be the thing to talk about there. that's where polling is important. in your campaigns by the way, i
would recommend that nobody does any nationwide polling, because unless you don't have money, unless you only have money for one pole, because what you want to do is have polling results that focus on the states you're focused on. if you're focused on five states and each poll costs $40,000 each, that's 20% of your budget. so maybe what you want to do is say you're focused on, say, illinois and iowa, you focus on iowa, do a poll there and hope that the results are similar enough to guide you in illinois. >> i'm curious to know whether you find alternative forms of advertisement, say, ads on a bus, or on a subway ortegas station, for example, those kind of advertisements to be effective in advocacy campaigns? >> they can be, depending on the size of the place you're trying to do them in. they're very valuable for raising the visibility of the
issue. but you know, like if you're in a city like seattle, where they've got a lot of buses, it can be very effective. if you're in a city like detroit where you don't have that many buses, not as effective. it's much harder though to have a message -- i mean, the message has to be very simple, like three ar four words and the guy's name, your target's name. >> laura? >> you talked a lot about talk radio, and what do you -- what are your thoughts on actually having someone on the show talking about the issue as opposed to an ad, like if you are going against it, and you want a of can difficult to go on a conservative talk show just to raise the visibility of the issue. >> that's a great example of earned media, getting somebody from your side to be on a talk show. hopefully one that's sympathetic and can arouse your base. so if you're the anti side on this base, trying to get your people on conservative talk
radio would be a very valuable thing to do. it's harder to do on the pro action side, because frankly, there's much less progressive talk radio, so there are some shows, like that's where you target your national public radio, your local public radio if you're on the pro side, because that's your base, it's going to be listening to that and that's how you reach them. >> dan, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> one of the main themes here is you need more money, so be creative about bringing in more money to your campaign, because frequently a firm will be given a million dollars, but they also are expected to build coalitions, bring in money to help with the advertising. >> but remember, stealing is never a good idea and one other thing is i'm very glad to be the best speaker you've ever had this decade, so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm going to take two minutes before our next speaker and then we'll have a break after the neck speaker. two minutes to set up for him, for c-span.
v:t(this nextw3 panel is on the building coalitions around a ]ñit is a l. ç[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] w3>> this is jim, american university. a two-week intensive course about lobbying or advocacy. our next speaker is toll molina joe -- joel molina who is going to be talking about issues that will be helpful to you as related to caption trade.
and trade. now he's at wechsler walker, he's the executive vice-president and managing director and wechsler walker over the years have had interns from this program and as a matter of fact, employees eventually, they've been very loyal and wechsler was the president and founder of the wechsler group and then it became wechsler walker, she passed away this past year and i've sent a piece from the "new york times" magazine to you on the blackboard, some of you have read it, she was on our board here, she's very supportive of this program for many years, and we appreciate that. wechsler walker is part of hill naughton by the way and joel has an interesting combination of skills. he's a professional actor, and he's appeared on offbroadway and in commercials, and as i was saying before, we've had other actors here, but they didn't realize they were actors, but he's a real actor, the only one
that we have, he has a degree from yale in political science, but he's still ok, still learned something up there. he's worked on the hill, like many of our presenters, and worked in the private sector, and the private sector at wechsler walker. he's focused on issues that are part of the waxman-marquis bill on nuclear energy and electricity markets on hydroelectric power, but he also worked on nafta and ann wechsler was well known and joel for putting together the coalition to help get nafta passed when clinton was in the white house. it's a case study that lots of people focus on. we welcome joel yet again. again, he's part of the family, he's been coming for many years. >> my pleasure. good to be back. hello to all of you. let me say at the outset, i love
your questions, so don't feel like you have to wait till the end, if you have a question about something i'm talking about, it's probably best to address it then, and who knows, it may end up taking me in a different direction, which may prove more interesting and perhaps entertaining for awferl you. -- for all of you. as dr. thurber mentioned, the topic for the next hour or so is coalition building and how coalitions are used not only to define issue campaigns but to advance them and to enable them to succeed. i've been doing it at wexler-walker for 17 years and in the course of those 17 years, probably iran maybe upwards of half a dozen of those campaigns. each one is different. the issues are different. the time and place changes, which party is in control of congress, which party is in the white house, so that element is always different, but there are common themes that run
throughout and what i'm going to try to do is use one case study from a number of years ago, which will give you a sense of how all of these campaigns operate and why in thick, there is a need for pulling together what we try to make as eyebrow raising a group of traditional and non-traditional allies to stand up with, generally speaking, my clients to advocate for various policy outcomes. you've probably heard from other lobbyists, i should say at the outset, i'm proud to be a registered lobbyist. there are a number of lobbyists who have gone through the painful process of deregistering in these obama years, but i'm sticking with it. most lobbyists play their trade through relationships, through experience that they were able to gain working on capitol hill, or for an administration. and the sense that they know the people, they know the issues,
and so we, i, can be a successful lobbyist. that way thrives and it works real well. the way i have practiced and the way these campaigns operate is from an acknowledgement that you can't survive on relationships alone. in fact, what you need to do is create new relationships that don't currently exist, relationships among interest groups, relationships between private sector interests and public sector interests. to try to draw connections that those sitting in office will find interesting, and, more importantly, that will give them the sense that they can stand up and support from a public policies perspective the issues that that interesting group is advocating. so what we in putting together these campaigns can accomplish, is we can provide cover, and when i say that, i mean both cover from the prospect of a member of congress, who wants to
vote for an issue, but perhaps is wary about being too closely associated with the economic interests, with the corporate interests behind those positions. if we can provide other voices, other constituent voices, to give them a sense that this is the public good, more than the private good, that is usually a key element of success. another thing we do is to try to redefine issues for different audiences, and this both works from the perspective of educating lawmakers, to give them a new way of looking at an issue, but also potential allies. if we're approaching a group that perhaps isn't aware of its stake in the climate change debate, just to use one example, how can we talk to them in terms that will them them understand that this is an issue not only that's important to them and their members, but one that if
they don't take an active role in advocating for it, they and their members perhaps will suffer. and then ultimately, the goal in all of these is to try to make what is usually a controversial issue to make it seem less controversial. non-controversial. or at least convince enough people that that's the case. and in doing so, we try to work all different angles, and you're probably hearing from folks over the course of the last week or however long this is proceeding, folks that operate in one, perhaps two of these areas, but direct lobbying. grassroots advocacy, grass tops advocacy, we could talk about that in detail. coalition building, media relations, polling, strategic research and of course, fund raising, which is an ever constant part of this process as well. my job is to focus on all of
these, to work with a group of consultants, a group of firms that i generally manage, the effort under which they're operating and in working with that group in tandem with the core group of clients who are hiring us for your services, move forward with a campaign that usually lasts a number of years, that needs to be flexible, and one that ultimately can deliver again this public policy result. any questions so far? all right. why do companies, and it's generally groups of companies, that come together to hire a manager like me, it's usually a group that has a common goal, but frankly, they don't, as individual companies, have the time or the resources to dedicate the time that's necessary to move that effort
forward in a sustainable and successful way. so generally, they will pool their resources and come to some agreement to create usually a 501c organization, those funds that they pool are then used to hire a team of consultants that i generally am tasked to manage, and then we work quite chosely with those clients in a very dedicated way to try to make sure the process moves forward. so if you think about the work that i do, i'm a campaign manager, but the -- it's not a candidate that we are promoting, it's an issue. and the outcome isn't election to office, but rather passage or in some instances, defeat of a particular piece legislation, or perhaps the outcome of a pending executive branch agency decision.
let me talk in detail now about a campaign that i ran from 1999 to 2005. and let's stop there for a second and think about six years. whether we started this program, in fact, one of the questions the clients asked of us before we started is well, is this a one-year effort, how long do you think this will take? we had no idea that this would take six years. you all heard that the legislative process is extremely slow. i'm here to tell you that it absolutely is slow and it's a good thing that it is slow, because frankly, the legislative goals that we had at the outset were far different from what ultimately became the law of the land six years later and frankly what became the law of the land was a real, real good public policy outcome and i think at the outset, we weren't quite at the point that it had gotten to that stage, so time can be a friend, not just to those who
want to stop something, but also a friend to those who want to make sure that the end result is ultimately in the public good. in this instance, we were hired by a group of utilities who generate hydroelectric power. the ray the nation's hydroelectric system works is about a of the hydro in the country is managed and operated by the federal government. if you think of the bonneville power administration, the tennessee valley authority, the big federally run hydrodams that generate a good amount of the electricity in the pacific northwest, in the tennessee valley region, and in other places around the country. the other half of the industry are private entities or municipal or rural electric co-op entities. you've got investor owned utilities that generate a lot of
hydropower and then you've got cities, counties, who are part of the municipal electricity world, and some of the rural electric co-ops as well, that own and operate these hydroelectric projects as well. let me talk for a bit about hydropower, because, and i don't want this to become very i in-depth policy and analytical, but i think it's important to just touch on some of the attributes of the resource, because it gives you a sense of how we approached this process of surrounding the industry with some new allies. hydropower is clean, you're not burning anything to generate electricity, essentially, you have a running river, or you have a reservoir that some cases existed before the hydroproject was crafted, or in some cases, the reservoir was created as a result of creating a dam that stopped the flow of water in a certain location.
but in any event, you have water which can either be flowing free or if you wish at any time to open up a chute, the water stalled can pass through these chutes to spin turbines through the farce of gravity and those -- force of gravity and those turbines power the generators. it's a rather simplistic view but not too much more complicated than that. it's using the force of gravity to generate electricity. so it is clean, you're not burning anything, -- burning anything, it is quick to turn on and off. a coal fired plant, a nuclear plant takes hours if not days to get up and running or to shut down. generally utilities use the hydroprojects to generate peak power. if during the summer, things are getting too hot and they need a bit more juice on the grid or in the dead of winter folks are outsing their heating more and
they need to prop up the grid, you're able to really as simply as throw a switch, get the hydropower generated and off and running on the grid. it's crucial to the reliability of the electrical grid. it is also cheap. there's a huge consumer benefit. esendingly, if you look at all the different forms of electricity, hydropower is one of the cheapest, which is why in many parts of the country that are heavily dependent on hydropower, you have among the lowest rates in the country. now, the other important impact of hydropower is the environment hall impact and this plays a big role in this campaign as well. because you cannot in this -- and this held true in 1999 when we started, and it certainly holds true today, you cannot enact any piece of energy legislation of note that has an environmental impact without
building support from within the environmental community, without acknowledging that environmental impact, and to the extent you can, mitigating that environment hall impact, and we can talk in detail about that as well. let me spend a little time about the specific issue facing this industry and why they felt there was a need for this campaign to be mounted. the privately owned and operated hydroprojects in this country are run according to rules and regulations set forth in the federal power act. that is a piece of legislation that was originally enacted back in the 1930's. and over the years, has been modified and amended to keep up with current methods of generating electricity, and other concerns as well. according to the federal power act, of after a set number of years, these privately owned and operated hydroprojects need to get a new license, they need to
be rely sensed. -- rely sensed. without that new license, the projects wouldn't be allowed to operate and back in 1999, there was approaching a period where a good number of these projects in the country were going through this rely sensing process. the rely sensing process at the time and as a result of our work, this has been amended, but going back to the language in 1999, and this language is still in the federal power act today, i'm going to read you two bits from section 4 of the federal power act. one is discusses the fact that the federal energy regulatory commission and that is ferc, the commission in charge of this relre licensing. they shall give equal purpose to protection mitigation of damage to and enhancement of fish and
wildlife, the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. so it's basically telling the ferc that it has a responsibility to give equal consideration to energy and environmental values. but if you look a little earlier in the same section, it gives authority as well to certain resource agencies, and we're talking the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the u.s. forest service, and noaa fisheries, which was the national marine and fisheries service at the time. it was telling them that the secretary of that department, is able to impose any conditions that they shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. it's basically giving these resource agency secretaries the ability to impose conditions on this license to ensure that the environmental aspects that they are cast with overseeing are adequately protected.
now, in practice, you've got the equal consideration on the one hand, but this -- what evolved into what was known as manhattantory conditioning authority on the other and there was a disconnect, because frankly, there were a series of karatekas which essentially tied the ferc hands. if practice, there were a number of hydroprojects that were facing blanket mandatory conditions by the department of interior, the department of commerce, or the department of agriculture, which are where these resource agencies are housed, and for example, there could be a condition imposed on a hydroproject and this was a real instance, where the hydroowner would be responsible to spend x amount of dollars to build picnic tables in and around the project. there were conditions to demand that the utility construct an
aquarium near the hydroproject. there were requirements that the utility build fishways and other means through wish species of fish not native to the river would be protected. now, those are some extreme examples, but the sense was, there was no mechanism through which these resource agencies were required to justify that these conditions were the right conditions, the right need for the right problem, and absent a tweaking of this federal power act language, there was there could be a numberç of vey expensive conditions that could render the project on economical. it would become more expensive for them to get a new license for their project then to get the license with these çconditions, so the industry turned to an effort we were asked to run to try to find a
sensible way to change the way in which this mandatory conditioning authority was being utilized. any questions? that is a mouthful. çgood. why do these groups decide this effort was necessary? numberç one, and this is usualy top interest -- there is an economic interests at stake. qthese projects in many cases if you looked at the smaller municipal utilities in the northwest, some oft( the countis in washington state have one hydrot( project, and if that becomes a un-economic, it shuts down, and they have no word to get power from. an extreme example, but those examples are out there. there was economic interests. there was a sense that trade organizations -- this is important. just about every company that operates around washington is a member of one, two, three,
perhaps more trade associations, and generally speaking, these are the entities that would be tasked with these grand efforts çtoñr move a campaign of this nature forward. in this interests you have the edison electric institute, which represents the investor utilities i talked about. ççyou have the power associat, which represents the municipal utility's i mentioned, and then you have the hydropower association. they are very large and powerful entities. they have lots of other priorities. as important as it is for these utilities to see some reforms for the hydro process, the fact is that hydro licensing reform is probably pretty 4, 5, or six for those trade associations. the national hydro and
association is relatively small but relatively underfunded, and there was a limit as to what they could move forward and do, so there was a decision on the part of indmó)qup&i]qkç utilito outside of the realm of these trade associations pull oq÷resources, hire a team of consultants that could help drkv this issue forward. pool resources and hire a team of consultants that could help drive this issue forward. importantly, our effort was done not only with close coordination with these trade associations they were literally at the table. they weren't paying participants of the effort. it was critical from our perspective and from the perspective that it be done under one coordinated roof. one of the real pitfalls of this type of legislative type of advocacy is that if you don't have a coordinated effort, if you have two or three different entities all working towards the same end but doing it independently, it's a train wreck or multiple train wrecks
ready to happen. we knew at the outset that there would be value in us all working from a coordinated posture. we were the only ones as we were told afterwards that brought to the table that this acknowledgement that there was this whole world of third-party advocates that no one had thought about tapping into. and this gets to the heart of why this effort is such a good case study for you today and frankly why the effort was ultimately successful. if you think about the players involved in hydroadvocacy, traditionally, you obviously have the utilities themselves and their trade associations. you have the environmental advocacy community. you have the federal and state agencies. you have a number of native american tribes, a lot of these hydroprojects, especially in the northwest operate in and around tribal lands. and then you had, obviously, 535 members of congress, some more
interested in this issue than others. and they traditionally were the ones who industry would work with to try to move this type of reform forward. but what was absent until this effort was moved forward were folks who frankly had an enormous stake in this issue and as i mentioned earlier, some of them were aware of this stake and some frankly were unaware and we had a job to do in educating them and bringing them on board. but let's go back to those benefits of hydro. i talked about reliability and the cheap -- relatively cheap aspect of hydroelectricity. that's a consumer benefit. the consumer advocacy world is enormously influential in washington. you have some national consumer groups. you have some regional and local consumer groups. they had been absent from the hydroadvocacy world. clean air benefits of hydropower. it was not easy to find clean air groups who were willing to
step out in support of a hydropower issue but we found a few. we empowered them. we gave them the ability to have their voice heard and it made a difference. recreation groups. i talked about these reservoirs that were created in some instances by these hydrodams. reservoirs through which an avenue of boaters fishermen, jet skis -- there's a whole industry and frankly vacationers. folks who build houses along lakes so there's a real estate interest as well. we brought them on board. the labor unions. one of the more effective alliances that we turned to our energy work regardless of the resource is to try to bring business and labor unions together. there are certain congressional districts. there are certain states where unions are enormously influential. tionally especially with this administration, it's enormously
helpful to be able to go in and talk about an issue where you have standing on one side a business interest and a labor union interest on the other. another key benefit of hydropower has to do with irrigation. in certain parts of the country, if you didn't have the hydrosystems, you wouldn't be able to bring water inland which enables farming interests to be productive. so we were able to reach out to the agricultural communities as well. so it gives you a sense that there are some innate constituencies that have ties to hydro until this time in '99 basically weren't part of the equation. so our strategy was -- yes. [inaudible] >> are there other groups that build coalitions? >> absolutely. that was about what i was going to get started with. no, you were right on target. >> and joel, before you get to that. 50% of public not municipal or counties. were they include in the coalition?
>> they were not. generally they are not subject to the same relicensing rules and so their stake was not relevant in this. that being said, some of the current energy campaigns i'm involved with now -- those entities are very much involved. so our first step and it gets to your question, how do you reach out to these types of groups? it starts from relationships. a firm such as ours who have been doing this type of work for decades -- we have over the years worked closely with many of these groups. so where relationships exist and it's always important when you identify relationships that you try not to let ego get in the way. a lot of people say, well, i know this group best. i know this senator best. you want to do your homework to makes who has that truly best relationship to ensure that an
approach is met with respect. it is met with an honest assessment and it is met with knowledge that whatever future relationship may come out of that approach, that relationship will be treated appropriately. and that's something i'll get to in the next few minutes as well. so you want to identify the best relationship and then the next step is how are you going to phrase -- how are you going to frame the messaging for this interest? i mean, we can put together a set of messages on why hydrolicensing reform was important. but some of those messages may not resonate with some entities as they will with others. so this is where creativity comes into play. and a lot of folks in my profession don't give creativity enough of an emphasis. because often it's that thinking outside of the box which will give you that leg up and to give you that perhaps unseen opportunity to find some success
which might otherwise be evasive. so you want to understand how best to speak to those groups, that individual group, in terms that will resonate with that group and their members and how can you convince them in what is essentially a five-minute phone conversation if you're lucky you'll have a face-to-face meeting afterwards but in five minutes, how can you communicate to them that this is something that a face-to-face meeting would be, you know, worth their while? and then those five-minute phone calls turn into face-to-face meetings which turn into additional follow-up conversations. and you want to get to the point where an individual entity -- and we usually try to start with national associations. if we are approaching the consumer world, for instance. in just instance we approached the consumer federation of america. and we knew if you bypassed cfa and if you went to perhaps more of the localized chapters of cfa, their question would be,
well, have you spoken to the national chapter. if you have the buy-in of the national entity, which is not always easy but if you have that buy-in, you are then in a position not only to immediately gain entree to their members with their permission but it immediately gives you that step forward in what will then be the next step, which is communicating the urgency to those local entities. and if they can reach out to their national association and get some sense that this is a worthwhile cause, we have a much better chance of getting them to join with us. so in this case we looked at these five or six broad areas which we wanted to tap into. identifying core trade association leaders forever each. we approached each of them through those best relationship means. and really the goal was to get them to endorse a mission statement. and i'll talk very soon about core materials for building a campaign.
but the very first writing assignment involved in any of these campaigns is what is the mission statement of a campaign? what is it that the campaign stands for from a public perspective that will actually be a vehicle that an entity can look at and determine whether or not to sign on the dotted line? in the case of hydrolicensing reform, we created a stand-alone entity. it was important that it not be known as the hydroindustry campaign to reform the licensing process. instead, we wanted to create something which could resonate in the media, resonate on the hill and importantly, resonate with what we hope would be potential coalition members. so we created a group and we called it "water power," the clean energy coalition. that is something -- it's important when you're choosing a name and one of the early exercises in these campaigns is always to come up with some of the more outlandish possibilities of campaign names, but you want to make sure that
the one you ultimately choose is readily identifiable by anyone who see it is. if someone gets something from water power, more than likely you're going to think about generating power through water. maybe not. i'd be interested in your thoughts if something was triggered in your mind. but we wanted to focus on hydropower without saying hydropower. and we wanted to tap in with the tag line, the clean energy coalition, which was ultimately our selling point, which is if you let these hydroprojects run the risk of being shut down, where are you going to make up that clean energy? and this was back at the time post-kyoto, when the clinton administration was very interested in pushing clean energy ideas and provisions. and we wanted to make a clear statement that you couldn't be pro-kyoto and at the same time be antihydro. and we had a mission statement and this is also important. should a mission statement be specific to a piece of legislation?
we had legislation that we inherited when we were signed on to this effort. legislation had been introduced in the senate and introduced in the house. did we want the mission of water power to be h.r. 1221 and s. -- whatever the numbers ended up being. it's important in framing these missions that you not tie yourself to too narrow an end result. coalitions take a long time. in this instance it wasn't just 1999 to 2005. but it was four separate congresses. the 106th, 7th, 8th and 9th congresses. you start from scratch and you want to make sure that your mission for water power is able to survive whatever twists and turns come your way. you don't want to have to go through the ordeal once you build a coalition of having to switch mission statements and go
back to each entity -- you know, take a fresh look at that time. do you still want to be a part of it? one of the cardinal rules of coalition-building is you want the coalition to build. you don't want to be losing coalition members. and once their members are tied to a mission statement, it's important that mission stay intact. so you want to build a mission statement broadly. the mission statement of water power was essentially listing the benefits of hydropower. talking about the threats of the current licensing process. and a statement at the end that water power supports reasonable environmentally responsible reforms of the hydroelectric licensing process. that was something that was broad enough to enable these folks to look at and say, we can support this. once we've made the case to them that it was something that would be in line with their priorities and their members' priorities. so if we're lucky and in this case we were, we did our homework. we approached the right groups with the right messages.
attention. also from a perspective of generating legislative, lawmaker attention because the next stage would be building support in congress trying to neutralize what was a very antihydropower stance in the clinton administration in year one. then in 2001, when we had the new administration, taking advantage of a more supportive administration to help drive legislation as well. let me stop there. any questions? yes, laura? >> could you talk a little bit about how you maintain the coalitions and the tactics you use to contact the different members and how to keep everyone in the loop but still while maintaining your specific client relations? because in our instance, we're representing the u.s. chamber of commerce. so how do you define the coalition and then still keep your client as the top priority? >> yeah. and you're exactly right. the client -- the person paying the bills needs to be the top priority.
so what we do at the outset of these campaigns is figure out the infrastructure that works best for the paying entity or entities. in this case, we had about 20 individual utilities that were part of my client base. and we decided once a week we would get together. one of the trade associations, the edison electric institute hosted that meeting and invited to that meeting were not just representatives of the paying utilities but they were able to in turn invite all of their outside lobbyists as well. each of these individual companies have their own lobbying capabilities as well. and again, to ensure we were all speaking from the same coordinated page we brought them all around a very large table once a week. that enabled from the client perspective a close look at the priorities of the coming week, the challenges that have arisen since our last meeting.
discussions of strategy, both specific to what was immediately before us but also very large-scale tactical decisions which throughout the course of those six years we needed to make. so you want to make sure at this washington level on a regular basis that you have that face time for give-and-take for the clients. importantly throughout the year you also want to make sure that those who were their bosses at the headquarters whether the ceo, the vice president of government relations, those where those budgets generally came from -- at the end of each year, we, i, need to make the case to those whose budgets are the relevant ones that this is a worthwhile investment for them to continue funding for the next year. so that involved creating progress reports. at times face-to-face ceo meetings. basically whatever the clients based in washington felt was needed for them to adequately make the case for progress to
their superiors. so that kind of talks about the coordination from the client perspective. i talked about the cardinal rule of not having your membership from a coalition perspective decrease. it is very easy to take coalition membership for granted. once you are successful in getting an entity to lend you their name and in this case of water power, we were asking for their approval to list them as a supporter on our website, on our membership list as a supporter of the water power mission statement, that doesn't give me the authority to run an ad touting this individual company's support for hydrolicensing reform. it enables me to reach out to them and say we have an opportunity. would you be interested in being profiled either on our website? or would you be interested in coming to washington to join a
fly-in of a small number of water power members who would be meeting with legislators? it's important from the campaign management perspective to never lose the trust of your members because it happens and it happens quickly where you'll get an email saying, please take my name off your list. you ask why. and, you know, you'll find out something that said. -- that happened. it doesn't happen enough because i've done it long enough to avoid those pill falls but when i'm working with new staff, when i'm working with new sister firms who are part of my consulting team, our paramount objective is to not just gain but to maintain the trust of these folks that lend their support for our efforts. because as quickly as you get a benefit from let's say the consumer federation of america signing on to an effort, you will have greater damage if they issue a press release talking about why they decided to leave water power. yes, sticking on this side of the room. howie?
>> with regards to members of the coalition, which don't necessarily have many of the characteristics of the majority of the members, for instance, if you wanted to form a bipartisan coalition of, for instance, of organizations which would normally be proenvironment, p proconservation and wildlife and then you have another organization that isn't so much on that on your ground, what are some of the extra strategies that you would use or employ to keep those members who aren't necessarily -- that don't necessarily have the characteristics of the majority of your members with you and how much extra time do you devote to them? >> the answer is a lot of extra time. i would say most of the time i spend during the day is talking to either coalition members or talking to my clients. less so with the individual
members of congress, although, at certain times during the year that becomes my priority. i mean, the legislative cycle is such when we got hearings and markups, when we got floor votes -- that all of a sudden becomes the focus and there are always those on my team who are focused on the hill and administration interaction. but your question is how can we ensure that intrinsic obstacles within two organizations -- how can you avoid those positions which aren't necessarily relevant to water power in this case but how can you keep that from entering into the realm of water power to blow up the entire effort. is that -- okay. great. it comes down to my being aware of what those issues are. my trying to have well-timed conversations with the entities involved. for them to know that i'm aware of this potential. and to find out again if advance
before it becomes a problem what additional comfort they may need. what might they need to hear from this other entity that could help make things a bit calm. and what role can i play then in going back to the other entity to try to give that extra level of comfort? if i do my job well, we're able to take those issues, minimize the impact before they become a problem. in certain cases -- and i've had this happen recently where on a campaign two paying clients have a real controversy. and it's not so much outside of the realm of our focus on the campaign.bw]a what we've done in those instances is we've tried to make a determination with the buy-in of all of the clients that we as a coalition just won't take a position on that specific element of the issue.ñ?÷ if that doesn't take care of it, we try to find some other accommodation. if ultimately it's fought possible, you'll end up with one of the entities leaving the
coalition.ñk it is not ideal. but oftentimes when it comes to and it's the best outcome. >> we're talking about building these coalitions. after you've got people on board, what about prioritizing in terms of what they're going to contribute whether it's financial support, organizational support or even just lending their name as you mentioned? could you just speak a little bit to that about prioritizing of the -- >> yes. every campaign is different. i would say 80, 90% of the ones i've done have been funded wholly by the clients who have hired me. there have been some instances where coalition members would be asked to pay a nominal fee.
generally speaking the rule of thumb the more people that are paying the more entities you have to really cater to. not that you're going to ignore a coalition member and it comes down to the type of job i do and regardless whether you're paying, you'll get the attention you need. but if a company is paying a relatively small amount, it is hard to convince that company's ceo that he or she has have the ability to mandate, you know, grand strategies. and that is where we can run into difficulties in terms of coordinating those big decisions with those who are paying the lion's share of the wait. it is also -- this won't be a surprise. it is easier to get folks to sign on as a coalition member if there is no fee. usually we will make it a free situation. and that is usually met with a smile and an appreciation on the other side.
but it does -- you know, there's always -- if an entity is doing it right, and i would expect them to, there's always going to be the question, well, who is funding it? how are decisions made? how will you be using my name? and that is again where those assurances that come from me and come from the reputation i've built over these 17 years that i'm someone that these folks can trust. because it happens a lot where other folks aren't as attuned to that and the coalition falls apart overnight. let's move over to this side of the room. scott? >> yeah. i was wondering -- you mentioned fees for members of the coalition. >> yes. >> we only have a million dollars in our scenario. and one thing we were investigating the possibility of was raising money for members of the coalition for things like paid media and do you think that's feasible. and how would you go about doing it? >> it's feasible and given the $1 million budget it's necessary.
any time you're talking about a paid media component, you're talking about a lot of money. and oftentimes the campaigns that i run outside of the dues structure -- there would be an assessment for additional contributions for a paid media campaign, for a new set of focus groups. you often tried to find either individual companies or individual groups of the companies to pony up that extra amount of investment. if you're not fortunate enough to have that type of resource available from individuals, then you need to be a bit more creative. there's a way to utilize online advertising to great effect and we've been doing that a whole lot more not just because of the new advances in online advertising but because of the economic realities that the monster budgets of a few years ago are not going to necessarily be available depending on the issue, depending on the industry. so there's always -- there's
always a way to take a million dollars and have an effective advocacy campaign. it's a question of prioritizing. it's a question of trying to have companies step up not just with additional assessment and influx of funds, but can they bring more of their lobbying resources to the table? can they bring more relationships through perhaps their boards of directors? are they willing to get their investors engaged? are they willing to get their employees engaged? if they're able to do that through means already taken care of in terms of, you know, every employee gets a paycheck every week or every two weeks. and there are a lot of instances where companies will put little stuffers in those paychecks with their pay stubs talking about a specific issue. here's why it's important to you. here's how you could get involved if you so choose. this can have an enormous impact on a grassroots, grasstops perspective if your goal is influencing legislation. rachel?
[inaudible] >> we have about 10 months for the project we're doing and it's a big inch on cap-and-trade. how feasible is it to build a coalition in that kind of time period? do you think it would make more sense for us, you know, to join a coalition that already exists or is it feasible in 10 months to kind of create our own? >> joel, may i jump in and say that the study is that they are pitching to the u.s. chamber of commerce and also the nrdc. >> good luck with that. [laughter] >> well, i work with both of of them and they're great entities. and both are very involved in lots of different cap-and-trade climate change coalitions. so your question is a good one. there are already a lot of campaigns and coalitions out there. the first question for any potential participant or contributor to that campaign is, does the campaign involve truly speak to my and my organization's legislative -- preferred legislative outcome? does it represent my interests?
and so in this, you know, first quarter of 2010, you've got a great opportunity and, frankly, the time to reach out to the right groups who may perhaps be less than enthralled with the path that their current coalitions are taking maybe seeing an opportunity to start something new. with a new renewed focused. so this three-month window of opportunity is a tremendous one. yes. >> the question i have, say we're a group like the nrdc and we're great exempt and that's great for us and our members obviously. and say we're thinking of using this partly of this million dollars to find other coalition members who might be willing to toss in money for our overall budget. and some of the other things that you were talking about as far as coalition-building. are we in any danger of hurting our tax-exempt status? is there something -- are there ways we should do this or not do this that are going to affect that? >> well, i'm not a tax attorney. i always work closely with really good tax attorneys.
and it's an important element of this because the tax laws as you can imagine are very specific and opposition groups and there are always opposition groups to every campaign i've run and any campaign that's out there. there are those who are literally waking up in the morning thinking how can we make, you know, that campaign really look bad today? and one of the ways that they will seek to do that is to make sure that your doing your 501c work appropriately. there are a number of very legal ways to have those contributions handled and taken care of. there are very specific reporting requirements that need to be done regularly throughout the year. and you need to have a little budget in your campaign for some tax counsel. yes, kenny? >> you brought up the opposition. and what is -- what should you do about an opposition coalition? do you ignore them? do you try and bring out media that goes against them directly or how do you deal with an opposition coalition? >> it depends on who they are.
one of the things you have to consider before you directly engage in opposition group is by your responding, are you giving them more attention and publicity than they would otherwise have if we stood back? the best approach that i take on in these campaigns is at the earliest stages, to try to sit down with those groups. if i have a personal relationship already, that comes in handy. if i don't, you know, try to find someone who can be an intermediary. generally speaking, there will -- there is enormous interest on the part of an opposition group to sit down early with the person who's running a new campaign. 'cause there's always this fear factor, you know, how much of a budget does this campaign have. what are they doing? what is their true goal. not that i'm going to be divulging that in a sit-down.
but if i can establish a personal relationship, an open line of communication and then we can do whatever we please with that open line, we don't have to utilize that, but if we can have that a little bit of personal interaction, you can diffuse the most problematic outcomes and perhaps open the door to great agreements. now, it is rare that those entrees can result in a joining of hands at a press conference and no problem. everyone is happy. and the legislation sales through. -- sails through. but oftentimes knowing the opposition group gives you a thought of perhaps what they may be trying to do. and then gives you the opportunity to think one step ahead of them or to go around what you expect they will do. but oftentimes the opponents are smart. they're savvy. and they will surprise me. and make my life difficult. but it makes us better and smarter having to respond.
you can't over the long term ignoring them is a problem. you can ignore individual opposition tactics, you know, for instance, if they issue some outlandish press release, cannot have a response. there are other ways perhaps you can respond without issuing your own release, you know, we all are utilizing on our campaigns and our websites the blogosphere and we are blogging usually attacking our opponents through blogs. that's an opportunity where reporters who are going to be the ones who are more apt to write about the issue will be tracking that give-and-take, that response, that back and forth without running the risk of perhaps your counter-attack getting too broadly disseminated, which is where some problems could occur. georgette? >> you spoke about the balancing and not only maintaining relationships with the clients
in your coalition but with their lobbyists as well. and on issues like energy and the environment that are so salient right now, i bet it's safe to assume that most of your coalition members are not only going to have their own lobbyists but are going to have retainers with not only one separate contract firm but multiple contract firms who are ultimately in competition to maintain that business. so has that ever created a challenge for you? -- in dividing labor and how are decisions made in your direct lobbying strategy and who's the best-suited lobbyists to take this client and coalition to the hill? >> it's an important and difficult task. and again, it gets to what i said early. you want everyone to the extent possible to be under your tent. it comes down to a personal relationship. can the company involved, can the individual lobbyists of theirs involved know that i am not after their business? that's something that i have control over.
can i at any opportunity that's available to me make those individual lobbyists look good? yes, there are opportunities. and i do that at every opportunity. there's a downside because campaigns end and then i lose the business while those lobbyists still end up working long term for those companies. but in the long run, i think i'm better off in terms of generating new business, a larger campaign business down the road, by having this ability to share the spotlight, to share the workload with other lobbyists. and to help them be as productive and successful in the eyes of their clients as possible. it's not always as easy. it depends on the willingness of the individual company. it usually takes a while, a few months, perhaps a year, for the company to realize that there's a benefit for them bringing
those lobbyists of theirs to our weekly or biweekly meetings. and then perhaps there's a question of -- you know, sometimes those lobbyists are on hourly rates rather than retainers. so there's a question of, you know, if i'm going to be calling the consultant to ask that they perhaps go meet with senator x, that will ultimately be passed through as a cost to the client. so i would to make sure that request goes to the client for them to make the determination. i can call the company representative and say, you know, given that your lobbyist's relationship with senator, you know, schumer of new york is so good, i would -- i would think it's important for the effort for that individual to take on as an assignment the schumer office. generally that is met with great idea. let's make it happen and then i'm able to work directly with that lobbyist or using the company as an intermediary. but, you know, egos, personalities, it's a very competitive industry.
very competitive business. you don't want to make enemies. and you can easily make enemies if people get a sense that you're trying to steal business from them or trying to undercut their reputation or their, you know, means of earning a living. lane? [inaudible] >> you talked about the uncertainty that kind of goes along with a bigger time horizon. well, for our project we're talking about -- basically within the next year but climate as an issue could, of course, go on for much longer. is there any provisions that you could take in building your initial coalition when over time it's not as effective or there's individual members that want to be released from the group or you want to unwind your project? like a scenario that i was just thinking about, you know, especially if you have a diverse coalition, you know, one member, whether it's a firm or another group might decide they've change just ahead their stance on that and take a different
opinion in the media. how do you have to unwind that group that you built? >> you handle it carefully. and you handle it in a way where there are minimal disruptions to the remaining participants. i'll give you one example. it happened with the hydro one and it was very delicate. our lead sponsor in the senate was larry craig of idaho. and idaho power was the main -- is the main utility in the state of idaho. and it got to the point in our legislative process where the legislative vehicle -- i remember -- i mentioned early on we inherit legislation and then that legislation in my opinion became refined and more effective over the years we were working on it. well, as that movement tack place, idaho power made a determination that it was no longer a piece of legislation. that was in line with their interests.
and so you had a situation not only of one of our members being disgruntled and wanting to leave but it's also the key utility of our key senator sponsor and it's a credit to senator craig and his staff and the way that they handled it that it was a smooth exit. one that frankly was done with minimal disruption. and one that frankly, you know, idaho power continued to be not a direct participant but we engaged with them. we consulted with them. and i would like to think that they benefited from the resulting change in the law. so it could have been a nightmare. but it was handled the right way. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> i would like to ask a broader question he. -- question. president obama basically has been attacking certain kinds of lobbyists. the lobbyists that he agrees with are stakeholders. the lobbyists that he disagrees with are those awful lobbyists. >> right.
>> and that he has what is in the public interest in his mind. and he's pushing it for the public good. you've used twice in your presentation the public good. now, you're a graduate of yale where a prominent pluralist robert dahl who said the public interest is the battle -- it's what comes out of the battle of specialized interest. but madison says, beware of factions. they'll undermine the public interest. could you define the public interest for us? [laughter] >> i think my time is up. [laughter] [inaudible] >> these are my own views, obviously, not my client's views, not that they would necessarily be different. the public interest is what enables our nation and our society to continue on what i consider to be a path of prosperity and health.
and that you could, you know, whittle down to enormous detail of what that means. but it's a sense that what congress is doing, what this administration is doing is going to ultimately be for the good of the individual citizens. now, i am a registered lobbyist. i've been one for 17 years. i can understand the concerns that this president has. i'm not surprised by them. i think it's unfortunate. i mean, you're looking at someone who frankly -- i think i'd be a pretty good servant of this administration in a formal capacity but it's not to be and i'm comfortable with that. but i do think there are specific instances where an individual's knowledge and experience are such a vital tool to this administration that's shutting them out completely i think is a disservice to the public good. again, i can understand why they are making the distinction because there are good lobbyists
and there are bad lobbyists. and you need to be careful with how that authority and power in the administration would be used. i think there are ways to structure it so that it could be used for the public good. >> thank you. >> other questions? justin? >> getting back to coalition-building. you mentioned there's a lot of work to be done on the back end to maintain relationships, to ensure that messaging is cohesive throughout the coalition. so in standing up a coalition, what is the typical staff structure? like how many folks do you bring on board and what type of folks do you bring on board. >> it varies from campaign to campaign. let me talk -- there are three campaigns i'm involved in right now. let me speak to the model that most of them are utilizing. here at wexler & walker at my firm, there are four of us.
that are working every day, you know, nine, ten hours a day on each of those campaigns. beyond the four of us, for each of the campaigns there's a dedicated public relations firm. that could have upwards of half a dozen to a dozen individuals working on that campaign. there's always legal counsel. a law firm which will have between one to three, maybe more, lawyers working on the campaign. there are other lobbying officials. -- officials. -- firms. we have cochairs and it helps draw press attention and press attention. they generally cost resources, cost money. so they usually have firms that they're associated with that are part of the staff. they will have staff that are part of our staff. there are strategic research firms that are often part of the staff. so at the end of the day, we
have about maybe 15 to 20 folks on a day-to-day basis working in some capacity as consultants on these projects. that is not counting the individuals at in some cases one of the campaigns i'm involved in now, there are 32 individual paying entities. and they all have, you know, at times dozens of individuals who are working not exclusively on the campaign but who are at our disposable and helping to drive our work on a daily basis. >> we have time for one more question. >> okay. who's got the best question? >> i thought i had the best question. >> rachel? -- rachel was talking earlier when you have multiple coalitions working around and similar interests. if there's multiple coalitions, would it -- have you ever tried -- have you tried merging them and creating an umbrella group or something like that? and if you wanted to do that, how would you do that? >> i've never done that.
not to say that it doesn't work and it doesn't work well. there's a time and a place for it. generally it's when one or both% of the coalitions aren't quite as successful as they need to be or there are limited resources. perhaps you have overlapping contributors. you've got, you know, six companies that are contributing to both and the fact is they don't have as large a budget as they used to and they need to find a way to ensure that both continue to work well. how can we do it? you can merge the two. you need to be careful in merging that you're being upfront to your individual coalition members. do the coalitions themselves have distinct missions and to what agree will one member of the coalition agree to all the elements of the mission of the other? that's where it could get very confusing and difficult. which is why it's really an issue of last resort.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> so there is nothing commercially available today that would enable stult use of the spectrum? you're saying it is ready for testing next year? >> i would suggest systems are being developed into radio systems. within the commercial sector, using it within the tv white
spaces. the development of those rules sometimes within the next 18 months, they will be deployed. >> any other comments, mr. calabrese? >> you heard from three of us. there seems to be a far greater in terms of quantity of spectrum. there are a couple of important precedents at least to build on. one, i think you're aware of is of course the military already allows shared use of certain radar bans so thanks in part to the jump-start broad band act the military agreed to open up the five giga hertz band that uses dynamic frequency selections, in other words the devices sense before they transmit and if they don't
detective anything like radar, they keep checking and checking and they can get off real quick. the other more important precedent to build on is the order last year from the f.c.c. on opening the tv wide space for unlicensed sharing because what the commission has required is a geolocation database so these smart device will need to have g.d.p. and internet access -- g.p.s. and internet access. we can build on that database and add a lot of frequencies over time that will have conditions attached to them. >> that is very encouraging to hear. i would just note that the first commercial application of the white space technology is occurring in my congressional
district. one other question. i'll ask if you have any brief comments about this? are there shortcomings in the present time about the spectrum and management processes that are employed both the ntia and the f.c.c. and if you detective that there are any, do you have any recommendations how those processes could be improved? mr. largent? >> i would repeat some of the problems with some of our members as being a shortcoming that i think areñrxd addressed #p=q!zez these bills and a definite step in the right direction. >> thank you very much. anyone else want to briefly comment on that? mr. hat field? >> i would add that the commission has done things in the past -- one of the problems with the system, there is a lot of rigidities built into it the
commission to its credit has gone to the use of secondary market where is the companies can --ened that has not worked out quite as well as some of us would hope. i think there is possibilities secondary market to reduce some of the rigidities associated with trying to manage the resource. >> thank you, mr. hatfield. my time is expired. the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. largent, my question for you is when we had the auction and raised about $19 billion and the bill that mr. barton sponsored and i was co-sponsor, i think it became the backbone of the fourth generation wireless service. that was one approach. another approach appears to be the stimulus package, they put
in $7 billion to provide grants. i guess the question would be the auctioning of the spectrum, it appears to me to be a more effective way to do it. you might comment on the two approaches and the one you think is advisable. >> let me just say this. the bottom line is we need to have additional spectrum in the wireless space in order to meet not only the demands but the promise, the hope to have broaden band world and so how ever you get to that point is subject to debate and could even become partisan but the bottom line is more spectrum is needed sooner rather than later. the last two traverages of spectrum allocated for r wireless use, both of those auctions took over 10 years to
come to fruition. one was 12 years and the other was 16 years to get it to come to fruition. our thought is this is really a process we're in the process of developing today that should have begun years ago. there is different ways to get to the bottom line but the important thing is to get to the bottom line and that is additional spectrum for the wireless industry. >> are members of your association going to benefit from this $7 billion stimulus package? will it be direct? i understand it is all going to go to develop the wirelines but do your companies see it as a positive? >> i would say that the majority of the money that has been allocated is not going to the companies that are in our association. >> ok. >> you mentioned briefly the champlee talked about t mobile
and the spectrum riall indication. you indicated the problem, the transition and mentioned my opening statement. i would think we want other carriers to compete and gets involved. this would be a flag to them that if it is going to take they have this investment of over $4 billion, how long can they continue to deal with thatñi procrastination. you might give us some ideas what can be done to improve this riall indication time frame and perhaps what we in congress should be aware of. >>çó is really helped by this particular bill that we're talking about today. my hat's offñr to you. i think congress has --
>> you think that will do it? >> congress has gone forward, made mistakes and recognized mistakes. >> you feel pretty comfortable about solving the problem? >> i'm not posit solves all the problems that are involved but it solves the problems that you know of with the auction process that took place two years ago. >> mr. hatfield, what steps could be taken to make more efficient use to have government spectrum that is already deployed? >> in my written statement, i two through the list of five techniques that can be used and the two probably that haven't been talked about as much here is one more technical efficiency, getting more miles per gallon on your car. there is sort of two ways we can improve transportation efficiency. one is by more miles per gallon or by carpooling, for example.
and sharing that we have talked about here is the carpool analogy but we also need to look at ways of more efficiently using the spectrum. there is a couple of ways of doing that. one is through compression, we deucing the number of bits that have to be sent and the other is using more efficient modulation techniques. what scares me is as an engineer, those techniques only look like they can provide us with incremental improvements. i'm not saying we shouldn't do it. we absolutely should, but the difficulty is they are probably not going to be adequate so that leads us to the need for more sharing and more reallocations. more intense reuse to have spectrum, for example, when your cell phone, the tower may be two
miles away and therefore you're taking up an area with a two-mile radius. if you shrink the cell down then you can use it several hundred more times. they have made enormous investments in more cell towers that, helps a lot but as you keep getting the cell smaller, of course, then you have to get that information to the cell tower back to some central location. that's why i believe your broad band policy, with the wireless industry, because the wireless industry needs to get the wireless data back to their central point and that requires a broad band facility. i think there is a real link of what's being done here. >> i thought dr. johnson might want to comment if he wanted to on the same question. >> in the commercial receiver
standards, the military already that is standards for radars but none exist for commercial systems. so there may be opportunities to take advantage of some of those standards. >> thank you, very much, mr. stearns. the gentleman from michigan, chairman dingell is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to welcome our panel. welcome back. i have some questions. since there are so many, i have to -- yes or no. mr. largent. has ctia or anyone else conducted usage studies sfozz the spectrum is being used? >> are you talking about the spectrum allocated for commercial wireless? >> have studies been completed to tell us whether the spectrum is being used?
>> i'm not sure i understand the question, sir. >> has anybody made any studies to find out if the spectrum is being properly used? ctia? f.c.c.? anybody? >> what we have available to this industry today is used more efficiently than any other country in the world. >> i'm going to take that as a no. i thank you for that. do all ctia carriers operate at full capacity on their allotted spectrum today? no, sir. >> has f.c.c. conducted any usage studies which examined whether the spectrum either by your members or anybody else is being properly and adequately usedñi with regard to that spectrum which is assigned to them? >> i'm not aware of any.
>> ok, so the argument seems to be here i think that you have enough spectrum for now but will need it 10 years from now or at some future time. is that correct? >> we have enough spectrum forñ now but we'll need spectrum for 10 years. >> i agree with you. our problem is how we are going to get that spectrum efficiently allocated. you remember we had a serious problem with regard to the fact that the spectrum was just thrown out by the f.c.c. and by the government to be sold for budgetry reasons opposed to addressing the proper use of the spectrum. now to all witnesses, starting on your right and my left, how do you view hr 1325 and 3019? do you view it as complemently
to the f.c.c.'s work? yes or no. starting on your far right, please, sir. >> simple yes or no answer, yes. >> sir? reyes, very much. >> sir? >> the answer is yes, but believe they could be expanded. >> sir? >> no. >> and the last witness. >> yes. >> now if the completion of national broad band should be delayed pending an actment of hr 3125 and 3019. how long should delay be? starting on your far right and my far left. how long could or should that delay be?ñi >> i think the requirement is so
great that we do not want to wait pending moving -- making some of these steps pending the inventory. >> mr. largent? >> i would agree with that. the sooner the better. >> next witness, please? >> there are bands and -- >> how long should it be? >> next witness. >> chairman dingell, the answer is delay is not good but delay is frankly better if you don't have the right information so if you need right information, delay may be necessary. >> i'm no special pleader for delay. my concern is if we do it, we do it well.
i'm very much troubled that we will expend that bad history again doing things poorly and have a mess on our hands because we have built upon a faultyñi - >> i yield back with thanks to you. >> thank you. the gentleman from oregon, mr. waliden is we can niesed for five minutes. i want to -- is recognized for five minutes. >> appreciate your technical council on the legislation as well. senator smith, i want to go to you regarding this notion put
forth by the distinguished scholar and drents at the f.c.c. for first amendment. dr. benjamin. in this paper, this is just from may of this year, he writes the most obvious regulations are deadweight loss. they cost broadcasters significant amounts of money but have no impact on their behavior. these are unlikely to have any impact on programming and thus will likely be pure costs. called roasting the big to burn down the house, a modest proposal. is the goal make it so costly on broadcasters they surrender that their spectrum. given that fact that we just
went through a $2 billion d tv conversion and you're on the cusp of a digital technology that is mobile and you make the argument in your statement about how every new subscriber to that makes that even more efficient because you're not adding to the -- if we follow professor benjamin's counsel or the f.c.c. does, aren't we just throwing that $2 billion into a paper shredder? >> yes, you're throwing $2 billion of u.s. taxpayer dollars away. untold billions that the u.s. taxpayer has has spent. suffice it to say, my phone has been ringing off the hook ever since this gentleman' work has
been revealed. that said, i think what he does is simply try to monoties highest and best use in pure dollar terms disregarding all the other reserved through local news and sports and weather. these are things that i think when it comes to emergency information, amber alerts, i don't know how you monoties that. when it comes to braggs and the broadcast airways, they have always been a public option to make sure that everybody gets served. he is suggestsing that maybe should have been yesterday. >> dr. johnson, i raised the about the amateur radio broadcast service. mr. roz and i are the two
licensed operate operators which gives us an opportunity to be real hams. when you look at this, which are you concerned about and what threats and value do you see in that spectrum? >> i won't be able to give you a full detailed answer because i have not looked at that particular issue and n detail. i would support however, i also am a ham radio operator. i would suggest however your thesis that the ham bands have been an important back-up system for the nation's security and i think they are also a valuable resource for citizen who is have an interest in that kind of technology. although there are other avenues to address those same issues now outside the ham bands i think they are still important and we would be happy to look into the
technical details. >> mr. hatfield? do you have any comment? tell me you're a ham radio operator. >> i think my license expired. i got into this when i was 13 or 14 years old. i think the problem that the amateur radio community has is they provide a vital backup. it is totally decentralized so there is nothing central that can file. -- fail. if you do it across the bansd, so often they are idle. perhaps we can do sharing there that would not diminish the amateur operations but in nonemergency times it might be used for some other vital public interest as well. >> i know my time has eck expired. i'm going to excuse myself. we have a classified briefing
with the secretary of state. again, i thank you for your testimony. i look forward to working with all of you on this issue as we move forward in a thoughtful and constructive way. thank you, mr. chairman . >> thank you very much. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for seven minutes. i'm sorry. if you can withhold, i need to go in order here. the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i'll try to be brief here. first of all, i want to thanking the panel. i found testimony very forward. i didn't hear anyone say no, i don't like this legislation. i'm going to ask you in a minute to expand on that. first i want to say expanding the rates of 10 giga hertz.
there seems to be a disagreement on that and i'm not sure why you think going up to 10 giga herts is not that useful. is it dr. hatfield or mr. hotfield. >> my doctorate is honorary. >> that's good enough for me. >> i think the answer is there may be some confusion. it is the range up tow roughly three gig hertz that is critical to people. on the other hand, if some of the services we might want to relocate could go higher, it would still work ok if they went higher in frequencies. we make an argument we ought to look all the way up to 10 to see if there is any opportunities that some could be reallocated from below. >> there are physical limitations. >> that's correct.
for mobile operations. for certain applications, for example, being up there, it might work perfectly fine. that's what i think is perhaps the basis for the difference. i would suggest going up there for that purpose but we mustn't kid ourselves. >> thanks. dr. johnson? you did mention the idea that there is no single metric for efficiency. is there anyone out there that you're aware of that would be useful? sort of a set of definitions? >> we think that a single definition, like intensity of use is not appropriate. we propose these a variety of metrix that correspond in parameters relative to the application that is being used. metrix for communications systems would be different than those for radar systems. >> are you going to proprovide
the committee with that information? >> anxious to work with the committee on examining metric definition. the last thing i have is the notion that the paper inventory isn't going to be adequate. i didn't quite appreciate that. i come from a technical background and i was a test engineer and a field tester and when mr. stroup showed the grass with all of those blank spaces, people who own spaces are going to say need to use all of them. it seems to me like a fairly just on the basis of what was spoken here this morning, a fairly big task to judge how much spectrum is available out there. would you comment on that? >> yes, sir. we would recommend.ñi 10-20
stations. overall longer period of time in a larger number perhaps in conjunction with universities. an ongoing inventory of how the spectrum trum is being used. >> that is going to take a lot of resources and time and money. even what you call a shortcut seems like a fairly big undertaking. >> i believe that the ntia and other organizations, the national science organization are compiling this information. many of our studies are already available publicly and can be independent dwrated into this database. it is not as large of an undertaking as it may seem. i agree it will be compiled on the national science foundation. the illinois institute of technology is undergoing a testing in chicago.
>> mr. calabrese? >> i mentioned from my written statement that the costs have come down. for example, the british telecom regulator recently completed a nationwide drive test of their air waves. they mount device on the rooftop which we can do with the postal service, whatever. there is also a very expensive devices now to have a mesh monitoring network being field tests in the d.c. very, very soon by a company. we're hoping to have one on the roof of our building downtown. >> my time has expired, mr. hatfield. do you have a quick response? >> in my written testimony i said one of the things we could do is focus on those bans which look the most promising. second, well, why don't i just stop there. >> i guess it comes down to one of our favorite presidents
saying trust but verify. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much mr. mcnerney. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you. mr. largent, are you familiar with this latest report that coim out? >> i have not read the entire thing but i'm aware of it. >> are you aware of the recommendations of g.a.o.? recommendations to improve consumers complaint process and registering and monitoring complaints and number two, develop guidance on oversight rules and develop polts policies of working with the states. >> the report showed that 84% of -- >> that's where i'm going. you're getting ahead of me. >> sorry. >> let's just go right there.
what i'm asking is they have these recommendations based on and so i'm going to ask you to comment about what they are based on. my gosh, look at all the choices the consumers have here going into the christmas shopping season and the levels of satisfaction. would you please comment on the facts and bases they are relied upon? >> i would think -- it is not the way i would have written the report based upon the statiskses that they found in the study. knowing this industry as i have for the last six years and seeing the consumer complaints decline every year and the consumer satisfaction go up every year, we feel like that is a movement in the right direction. 84% aprufle by our consumers is not -- approval by our consumers is not good enough for us. we continue to want to raise that even more but it is a heck of a positive mark for the industry.
and i hope to be able to sit for you in a year or two and be able to talk about how we're no longer at 84%. we're higher today. i think that the report did highlight some things that the f.c.c. could be about that would improve their service but the bottom line is that it was a -- i think it is a start for the wireless industry to show the improvement of our service for customers. >> companies, when they make strategic judgments in competition, wouldn't consumer satisfaction be one of those important elements? >> absolutely. it is the key statistic they look at all the time. >> i get excited when i listen to my good friend, mr. markey share his excitement about competition in the marketplace so i would share with my good friend, mr. markey, that when you rejoice in competition in
the marketplace and what it is bringing consumers relative to choice, do not be so eager to get more government control, if in fact, the marketplace is driving consumer satisfaction. the other point i would like to -- if i had a little latitude, mr. chairman, i'm also going to co-sponsor this legislation. ilt like to kind of shift -- i would like to kind of shift gears and turn to mr. smith and ask a particular question and as a matter of fact, it may drive mr. chairman, i think we should take a really good look here at comcast and nbc. so i'm going to ask a question about comcast and nbc, mr. smith. i have -- i've got some concerns about your member companies out there. i've got concerns about consolidation in the marketplace. i've got concerns about what
type of new business model does this bring? what is its impact and how does it drive up a new model? you talk about this as a multimedia platform. it is all about individualizing and advertising. i can almost see that we have going term marketplace, againing to profile people, pretty soon, advertising, as it is driven, not only on a web, you can almost have individual advertising occurring on tv. when i think about vertical integration, you have this many eyes of comcast and being able to control content it almost turns our present business model upside down. i welcome your comments. >> congressman, some of my members are for it.
some are concerned about it. i'm with my friends. >> very good, senator. [laughter] >> the n.i. bimbings has not take an position on this at this juncture. we are simply going to watch and see what kind of positions develop. >> you know, the supreme court long ago talked about the importance of having a real diversity out there among our media back in the 1940's with regard to ideas. if i were one of your member companies and i'm a small company and i a v a couple nbc affiliates, can't you relate to their concerns maybe about retransmission rights and fees and what impact is that going to have or upon others where by is there going tock cost shifting? >> obviously i answer their
phone calls because yes, they are concerned with the very issues that you identify. i assume that the f.c.c. and the dovept justice will look at all of these things. at this juncture, it is the feeling over the association that we should allow the process to work. >> one of the -- one of the concerns i have, mr. chairman, and why i encourage you to place your eyes and consideration on this issue is defined by the silence. when there is silence in marketplace because of this type of deal, that tells me that there is great concern in the marketplace and fear that if, in fact, a company were to come out and come against this type of merger, what type of repercussions in the marketplace would, in fact, occur. so the fact that there is silence throughout is beginning to bother me, mr. smith that, a lot of your member companies,
bhile they may confide in -- while they may confide in that phone call with you, are not going to come out publicly because they don't want to get jammed in their negotiations. am i very close here? >> i think they are very interested observers in this process and they share the concerns that you have expressed. again, we have networks and affiliates. they have most issues in common but this is one where there needs to be an accommodation, an understanding and a legal structure put in place that allows both to survive. >> i just would encourage us to put our eyes, to have a better understanding so we could try to see over the horizon the impact that is going to have. >> thank you very much. let me assure that our subcommittee will conduct at least one hearing on the come boston nbc acquisition at theñi
appropriate time next year. that announcement has already been made and the gentleman is quite right in expressing the need for us to focus on this very carefully. it is certainly our intent to do so. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i apologize for ourçó witnesses not being here. for you. recognizing the challengesçó th congress and the f.c.c. will face in trying to locate as much spectrum as possible. are companies within the ctia facing the possibility that the act (yq mr.ñr hatfield suggest as a possible solution? >> i would say our companies are at a point where they are exploring every option that is available to them chug which how to utilize theirñr own spectrum. look at every other avenue that is available to them in the
years ahead to access more spectrum. >> is it companies within your organization. using the dynamic spectrum acts? trying to borrow if you will during a peak time surrounding system. is that going on now? >> i'm sure they are looking at every option available to them. >> ok. mr. smith. good to see you. thanks for being here. let me ask you this one. i think it is important that we look for or search for a solution to the spectrum crisis that preserves free over the air broadcasting. in your testimony, you cites how the use of white space spectrum is a way. is this solutionñi workable in urban centers as well? >> it may well be. we do have a concern about interference and want to make sure that we don't degrade other
signals. >> let me ask you this this. has there been a study to show how much spectrum is needed to fulfill future business plans like mobile tv and multicasting. have you done some study ys? >> we are doing a study now on that very question. >> any idea when that study may be done? >> i don't haveçó a date but i will get that to you, congressman. >> ok, thanks. mr. hatfield, we talked about a spectrum crisis. is it -- we only have to worry about that for the high population centers or is this a national issue? in my rural area we have a lot of areas that don't have anything. >> it is primarily a large urban area issue and even within that
urban area there are some real hot spots. an example would be a football stadium on sunday afternoon. having said that, i think i tend to market it -- divide the problem into two parts, the urban problem and the rural problem. >> let me ask you this. is more access to the spectrum the only issue the f.c.c. and this committee should be focused on or are there other efficiency gains should be checked on with next generation smart phones? >> as i indicated in my written testimony, i doned hold out an awful lot of hope for some of the traditional solutions for if major urban areas but there are certainly the examples that i gave.
like compression and so forth that we should be pursuing but i don't think they sh those solutions solve the problem completely. >> if we start using smarts, would the manufacturers help alleviate some of these problems? can that be a solution? can we find it more in manufacturing opposed to the f.c.c. and government? >> i don't see how the hand sets by themselves can do an awful lot to improve with the exception of the sort of dynamic spectrum access where the hand set is smart enough that it is looking around to see what other spectrum might be available and moving to it so we can use the intelligence in the hand set to find additional spectrum. i'm not sure how the intelligence will improve the existing spectrum use. >> do you want to add something
on that? >> yes, i talk about it in my written statement about the importance of encouraging hybrid networks because as dale said, the -- we're reaching the limits, the technical efficiency limitsñr in terms of how close e carriers can bring -- sthrink cell size. you need to shrink the cell size. our truly extend phone wireless and when consumers have the choice of any device, the devices increasingly will be of a type they will decide on the fly what is my most economical path and in most cases that will be like in a place like this and at home and offices in public spaces, it will be over an unlicensed spectrum, a consumer provided that and that will
offlote a lot of traffic from carriers. >> thank you. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. hatfield, you are talking here about capacity for dynamic sharing of a spectrum so we can make more efficient use. what percentage of our spectrum needs do you think can be satisfied just by use of dynamic sharing? >> i have not looked at it on a -- i have not looked at it candidly in a sort of quantitative way but i think -- i'm not going to ask you -- i think it is sufficient enough that it would be a significant help. i don't think it gets us all the way there. >> yeah. so you're talking about here is
something which is supplemental to life. -- to what the needs are going to be in the future. the spectrum, in order to deal with the issue, is that right? >> i guess i would put it slightly different. i think we're probably going to need to use all of these different technologies. >> i use polysill abic words. do you agree with that, mr. largent? this reminds me a little bit of the improvement of efficient si of vehicles and appliances. we just said can we use new technology here to get a better efficiency these automobiles and out of the appliances which we use but at the same time you also want to do research on all new technologies. all electric vehicles, whatever to, move out of the old
technologies and that is kind of what we're talking about here. how do we get the additional spectrum and also squeeze out the mex maximum first quarter si out of the old technology. how do you view it, mr. largent? >> i have añr chart here that i will give to you. it basically talks about how efficient different countries utilize the spectrum available to them. in the u.s. we have 272 million consumers and we use per megahertz 660,000 consumers per megahertz of spectrum used and that is the most efficient by a factor of at least two of any other country save mexico,ñixd actually. they have 79 million users there. but we absolutely using our spectrum available to us in the most efficient way possible. and sometimes by a magnitude of two. >> mr. smith?
>> your question to us is about -- >> about this balance between squeezing efficiencies out of the old technology opposed to moving over the spectrum to -- what we now have allocated so that we can maximize the wealth generating opportunities. >> i think that is one of the miracles that we have before us is how much more efficiently we're using the spectrum now in terms of broadcasting has invested billions to achieve that efficiency. i do believe because we have seen the explosion of technology you spoke of at the beginning of the hearing that there are going to be come plegs technologies that will provide some of the so we can proserve the broad band and the broadcast values that the community seeks to preserve.
>> first of all, the department is driven toward increasing efficiency. we mentioned briefly in my testimony, the use of unmanned ariel systems and reconnaissance needs in iraq and afghanistan. lockheed martin has developed tools being used by our customers to increase that efficiency. i would like to point out in the federal-nonfederal binary view of things, it is not that. it is important to realize that the department is a major consumer of commercial equipment. so they have to balance that accommodation between commercial and federal needs. >> 20 seconds. >> yes, i would emphasize the military -- it is being built
into several military rating systems going back to reutilization, the p.c.s. allocation preeggedthambings encumberedly over 1,500 microwave paths. they received that with the option they could not interfere with them. they may not have to be relocated but share in the spectrum. >> i think we have to be inflexible with the goal but flexible in terms of what the final combination looks like but i think it will involve obviously some substantial increased efficiency and more spectrum as well. we have to ensure we encourage it to be maximized so we make ourselves as competitive as a nation as we can looking over our shoulders, number two, three, four in theñi world, as u said, steve, so we maintain it. thank you all very. >> thank you.
the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i just want to start by thanking all the witnesses but especially i want to thank bill hatfield for his years of dedicated public service and his assistance to policy makers and helping people across the country to better understand the technologies behind these issues. i've never had a chance to tell him that personally and he is here and i want him to know that. thank you, mr. hatfield. mr. largent, mr. smith, you both talk a lot about mobile video broadcasting. i'm curious. do you think people want to watch a limited number of channels at a set schedule on a device about this big or do you think they want to watch their choice of programs when they want to watch them and should that consumer preference drive
spectrum decisions? >> i would say from my personal experience, the older i get, the harder it is to watch television on a hand set. we're serving closer to probably now 280 million customers in this country will probably be the statistic at this endor this year. i would say there probably is consumer uptake at that particular service as it becomes available and as it is available now. >> mr. smith? >> congressman doyle? i don't believe they should be regarded as exclusive. i think we can do both. i -- i know young people are highly interested in mobile tv and i suspect many who don't have to wear these are as well. that said, i -- i think it is very important that these new inventions like hulu coming along, using broadcast content, it won't be many years until
your laptop will have a broadcast signal too. it is not either/or. it is both. >> it seems to me. i agree. young people, because i couldn't watch tv on this either. but it seems to me those same people are the ones that don't want a set schedule. they want to watch their show when they want to watch their show. and that being the case, you know, as we talk about where is the best nice allocate spectrum, it just -- yeah, it is -- i just saw a note here that says i want to watch the steelers beats the seahawks in realtime. right now the stealers are not beating anyone. so -- anyway, you're responsible for that. >> congressman. at that point, i hear your point and i also hare markey's point. i hear people say no, i want to watch it when it is really
happening. it is part of the american tradition. when its comes to sports people are anxious to see its live, realtime. >> first of all, i want to thank you for your kind remarks earlier. as an academic stepping back from this, you have asked a very fundamental question. if people want to watch consent simultaneously then that old broadcast model is a very first quarter way of doing it. if people -- is a very efficient way of doing it. i look here, your decision or our decision is what -- how that balance should be made and of course, on the broadcast side, we probably have this additional may sway the decision but i think that from an engineering standpoint that is a fundamental question. how much of it is a individual choice and when you want to watch it and when you want to
watch it simultaneously with other people in the country? >> does anybody else wavent to chime in on that? fine. mr. smith, in pittsburgh, roughly about 8% of the people in my region get with rabbits ears, over the air broadcast. i was just curious if you have any numbers of how many people, 8%, yeah, 8%, eight, watch with rabbit ears. how many people -- do you have any numbers on how many people watch hdtv -- is there any kind figures on that? >> i heard the range from 8% to 20% but i think it isçó a coupl of other factors that are important, depending on your congressional district. mr. barton's district may go as high as 40%. over the air tends about people
who are rural, who are poor, who are elderly, who have also invested in the digital transition. >> do you think thaiñr they hav h.g. testify's? >> i believe the estimate of what people have spend, $5 billion, manyor them do now. they really like high definition. they don't want to see it degraded. this is the miracle that is now made possible because we all did this and it is a very exciting future that i hate to see clouded by ill-considered ideas that pit broad band against broadcast. i think in the fullness of time there will be technologies that will provide for both. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have no more questions. i yield back.
>> thank you very much, mr. doyle. the gentleman from washington state is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. larjents, we know americans are going -- mr. larjents, we know americans are going to be looking to their cell phones more frequently. >> number one, i would applaud what the f.c.c. did in november. by improving the tower siting initiative. we have been fighting this battle for a long time. giving local jurisdiction ability to object to tower siting proposals but doing it in a timely fashion and that goes a long way to helping this industry provide more service to this country so i really applaud the f.c.c. for their action on the tower siting.
the two bills we're looking at today. the spectrum inventory bill looks at the possible spectrum that is out there, how it is being used and what spectrum could be identified for higher and better use, perhaps, and then your bill comes in at the end of the process and says here is a more orderly fashion to move the current spectrum holders to their new spectrum and doing it in a more efficient, effective way and do it faster. so both of these bills are good bills and go a long way to improving the process of acquiring additional spectrum which the wireless industry is going to need in the years to come. >> i didn't hear any constructive criticism of our bill. does anyone have any suggestion s of the bill i'm working with
mr. upton that you would suggests to improve product? mr. calabrese, you have suggested broadening the purpose of this spectrum relocation fund to support modernizing federal systems and allow fargo greater degree of band sharing. could you give us a sense of what you would be suggestive of as far as costs? what type of approach? >> right. it is very difficult to know the exact. i would assume first of all that the agencies that would be proposing to modernize their system, to free up the spectrum for sharing, that they would be in a sense, second in line. they would be first from that spectrum relocation fund, a priority for those agencies that needed to migrate off a band so that it could be cleared for
licensing as we did with a.w.s., the fundamental purpose of your bill. secondly, there -- we have now, we have remaining funds. and then i think the agencies should be able to apply to the technical panel that you proposed in the bill setting up which would recommend to o.m.b. which of those on a competitive basis would have the greatest impact in terms of freeing up spectrum for the commercial sector or spectrum first quarter si. it would make them more effective with more modern communication while also freeing up spectrum. >> thank you very much, mr. inslee. i'm going to ask unanimous consent on behalf of the gentleman from anybody, mr. terry, to insert from nebraska,
mr. terry. the strong warfare operations association. without objection, that will be made a part of the record and the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. i would like to ask the question of dr. johnson. your testimony, you indicated that future government spectrum needs will be focused on uses such as video and u.a.v.'s. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> can you please provide an estimate or the percentage that will be used by surveillance aircraft that is currently provided by commercial satellite systems using a system above 10 giga hertz? >> i cannot provide that but i can provide it after the hearing. >> thank you. do you believe video capacity
will use spectrum above 10 giga hertz? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> ok. thank you. if i can gets the answers in writing after the hearing that would be great and at this point i would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague, steve weir. thank you. >> thank you very much. a question i have and thank you for yielding, is it is about the delays and the delivery of spectrum andñi its impact on delivering commercial systems. when you look back on 2006, when t mobile made a lot of money out there, -- paid a lot of money out there, $4.2 billion for spectrum. we still don't have systems being delivered so when we lay out these timelines for the delivery and they are not met, so i look at this legislation is before us and i'm interested